Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 11, 2002 <br />Page 2 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />McDonald built onto this building, it was a pole barn and he told Mr. McDonald as long <br />as it did not fulfill the definition of a pole ba rn, there would be no problem. He stated as <br />long as the building did not ha ve metal skin and poles in the ground, the City would not <br />view this as a pole barn. However, he w ould still be required to meet the other Code <br />requirements. He indicated this expansi on was a good idea, as long as it was not a pole <br />barn construction. <br />Mr. Lyden asked if the definition of a pole ba rn was the material that was used on the <br />outside. Mr. Smyser replied that was one of the factors. <br />Mr. Lyden pointed out the City should not have a problem with the metal roof, <br />considering the City Hall had a metal roof. <br />Chair Schaps asked if the building inspector could look at this to determine if it was a <br />pole barn. Mr. Smyser replied he had check ed with the building inspector, and the <br />building inspector agreed that as long as there were not both poles and metal skin on the <br />building, it was not a pole barn. <br />Mr. McDonald noted on the surveyor’s map he had received when he added the last <br />addition on, it was noted that at some point in the future, he was intending on adding onto <br />the back of the building. <br />Chair Schaps informed Mr. McDonald to work closely with staff and submit a <br />commercial site and building plan. <br />Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:50 p.m., and was supported by Mr. <br />Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. <br />V.ACTION ITEMS <br />A. Laraine Cardarelli & Craig Severson, 82XX W. Rondeau Lake Rd., Minor <br />Subdivision <br />Staff explained Ms. Cardarelli and Mr. Severson are applying for a Minor Subdivision of <br />approximately 32 acres of land, zoned Rural, on the 82XX block of West Rondeau Lake <br />Road. The applicant would like to create two lots: one lot of 21.69 acres and one lot of <br />10.43 acres. <br />Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e Certificate of Survey shows the proposed <br />division of the 32-acre parcel. Parcel A, 21.69 acres, contains 22 % upland. Parcel B, <br />10.43 acres, does not have upland delineated on th e survey, but as aerial photos show the <br />land to have been in agriculture (and now in pasture), meeting the 20% minimum upland <br />requirement does not appear to be an issue. <br />Staff explained the minimum lot size for propert y in a Rural zone is ten acres. Both of <br />the two proposed lots will meet this requirement.